Sunday, April 4, 2010
circulating legitimation
So I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised that this book was actually a pretty fun, interesting read. It wasn't like I had to pull teeth to read it. Thank goodness. Crichton's use of rhetoric really defines where he stands and if there were no preconceived notions about global warming before this book, he would be one-hundred percent convincing especially with his "footnotes [that] are real." It is his use of rhetoric that really opens the readers eyes to what George Orwell says in the beginning, "within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss." No one really wants to talk about global warming and the possible causes because it is something so important. It is not just a matter for the United States but does effect the whole world. Crichton boldly takes on the topic of global warming and really tries to hit his opinion home with his use of scientific evidence, seen within his footnotes. Crichton comes full circle with a circulating reference that "we know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty." Crichton is hypocritical in a sense that he seems to do the same thing. Instead of showing a great degree of "evidence" for global warming, he turns the tables and overemphasizes the evidences legitimacy. His reference here really reflects that the thing that no one wants to discuss about important issues, is really the lack of knowledge and the questions that still need to be answered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Put simply, your post explains both the respect and disdain I feel towards what he's putting into print here.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, it seems like Crichton attempts to make the full-circle of circulating references with scholarly articles and compelling associations in the back matter. But this overemphasis on his complete rationality seems like more of a justification of what he left out of his story; he's covering his bases and trying to protect his credibility as a pseudo-neutral source, while at the same time 'allowing' the reader to make their own conclusions (though he clearly makes the case for GW skepticism).
I think figuring out the "questions that need to be answered" is something he comes short on; but without his controversial book here, we might not be as privy to the need for these questions.